The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Speedwell]

Yeah, it's amazing. It's like... humans replicate patterns that we find appealing.

I think it is remarkable that human mathematics evidently models so well the interaction of natural forces which produce those patterns in nature.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook, I was being snarky in my last comment.

Well, I still agree with the essence of it.
Thanks!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I still agree with the essence of it.
Thanks!

Wow.

 

[Radrook]

Thanks for sharing this. I found it fascinating. I agree with the presentation. As for the others in this thread, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Yep! Selective blindness is the usual strategy deployed whenever the obvious is pointed out.

 

[Nithavela]

Yep! Selective blindness is the usual strategy deployed whenever the obvious is pointed out.

You're soooo correct.

 

[Radrook]

Yeah - it even has the the person who made it up right there in the name. Gold star for showing that humans are intelligent.

He discovered a mathematical sequence already being constantly used in nature.
You are giving the wrong mind the credit.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He discovered a mathematical sequence already being constantly used in nature.
You are giving the wrong mind the credit.

You have been unable to show that God created the Fibonacci Sequence.

 

[KCfromNC]

He discovered a mathematical sequence already being constantly used in nature.
You are giving the wrong mind the credit.

Since you've only described one mind in your post I don't see where your objection is coming from.

 

[Radrook]

Since you've only described one mind in your post I don't see where your objection is coming from.

Christians consider the code as evident in nature as originating from the mind of a creator.
He is crediting Fibonacci.
Fibonacci discovered a code.
But that code was already being used.
So he is not the inventor of the code since someone else had already employed it in creating things.
That is the Christian view.
Of course you disagree which is OK since you are entitled to your view.

 

[Speedwell]

Christians consider the code as evident in nature as originating from the mind of a creator.
He is crediting Fibonacci.
Fibonacci discovered a code.
But that code was already being used.
So he is not the inventor of the code since someone else had already employed it in creating things.
That is the Christian view.
Of course you disagree which is OK since you are entitled to your view.

No, it is not the "Christian view." Christian theology does not require belief in Mathematical Realism. It is entirely consistent with Christianity to believe that Fibonacci created the mathematical sequence which models the divine order of nature.

 

[Nithavela]

The fibonacci spiral is actually not used all that often.

Logarhytmic spirals are, but that's not surprising. They work well.

 

[AlexDTX]

Yep! Selective blindness is the usual strategy deployed whenever the obvious is pointed out.

This is why only the Holy Spirit can reach the heart of those selectively blind. All we can do is give messages. Great message you gave, Rad!

 

[Speedwell]

This is why only the Holy Spirit can reach the heart of those selectively blind. All we can do is give messages. Great message you gave, Rad!

Asserting that mathematical realism is essential to Christian theology is sending the wrong message, as is implying that mathematical non-realism is tatamount to atheism.

 

[KCfromNC]

Christians consider the code as evident in nature as originating from the mind of a creator.

All Christians? I don't remember reading about this code in the Bible.

Anyway, you're making quite the jump from a pattern existing to there being someone who made it.

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[Subduction Zone]

He discovered a mathematical sequence already being constantly used in nature.
You are giving the wrong mind the credit.

This is essentially an argument from ignorance again. People do not understand what causes a specific pattern to show up so they try to claim that is evidence of their god.

Not knowing an answer is not evidence. Perhaps you should read my sig. It will help you to understand. What you should be trying to find out is if biologists understand why we see these patterns. Quite often the answer is as already given, because they work. Sometimes, like the nautilus shell cited quite often, are due simply to the geometry of growth. No thought, no intelligence, was needed. You could probably write a simply computer algorithm that reproduces it. The pattern is not due to planning, it is simply due to how a shell can grown.

 

[Nithavela]

This is essentially an argument from ignorance again. People do not understand what causes a specific pattern to show up so they try to claim that is evidence of their god.

Not knowing an answer is not evidence. Perhaps you should read my sig. It will help you to understand. What you should be trying to find out is if biologists understand why we see these patterns. Quite often the answer is as already given, because they work. Sometimes, like the nautilus shell cited quite often, are due simply to the geometry of growth. No thought, no intelligence, was needed. You could probably write a simply computer algorithm that reproduces it. The pattern is not due to planning, it is simply due to how a shell can grown.

Except that (to reiterate it one more time) the fibonnacci spiral is not what one can see in a nautilus shell or any other shell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that (to reiterate it one more time) the fibonnacci spiral is not what one can see in a nautilus shell or any other shell.

Right, it is a logarithmic spiral, as you pointed out earlier. And it still could be replicated by a very simple computer program. No real intelligence needed.

ETA: A nice little Wiki article on the logarithmic spiral. It shows up quite often in nature:

Logarithmic spiral - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

All Christians? I don't remember reading about this code in the Bible.

Anyway, you're making quite the jump from a pattern existing to there being someone who made it.

The usual jump you and all other atheists rapidly make but then refuse to make if it involves a creator.

BTW
Your objection about Christians being totally incapable of reasoning unless they see it in the bible is nonsensical. It is also completely unscriptural since we are to told in the Bible that nature testifies to the existence of the creator. To which you will reply by saying that you
can't see.

 

[Speedwell]

The usual jump you and all other atheists rapidly make but then refuse to make if it involves a creator.

BTW
Your objection about Christians being totally incapable of reasoning unless they see it in the bible is nonsensical. It is also completely unscriptural since we are to told in the Bible that nature testifies to the existence of the creator. To which you will reply by saying that you
can't see.

You're right--I can't see how that endorses mathematical realism, or what mathematical realism has to do with the existence of God..